We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Warning: JavaScript is required for some functionalities of this page. Please enable the use of JavaScript in your browser. Log In
Register My Account
Log Out (%1$s)

We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.

Warning: JavaScript is required for some functionalities of this page. Please enable the use of JavaScript in your browser.

Good point for once rad, Yes nobility spirit was prevalecent thorough the stories, but having a extraordinary ancentry helps, that is why Frodo is the ring bearer and not Sam and also most of the time sam adresses frodo as his chief.

The deference Sam shows is simply that of a faithful servant to his master - Frodo doesn't have an extraordinary ancestry, just one which tends to display traits that are uncommon in hobbits, who tended to be petty rather than noble and self-sacrificing. It's not as if Tookish ancestry is needed for that though - while Sam is a simpler soul than Frodo he's good-hearted through and through - he takes up the burden of the Ring for a while, resists its temptations and is able to hand it back willingly, which shows considerable strength of character. And the Powers themselves recognise that, he's allowed to travel into the West in the end. So, one shouldn't see virtue and imagine it must come from some extraordinary ancestry - especially when the author indicates that the idea of the Tooks actually having such ancestry was 'absurd'.

For the record I think its linked nobility of spirit and heritage, that is also prevalecent in most lore just like Aragorn, Elendil and noble elves all share this.

It's certainly linked in Elendil's case, as in Aragorn's, but it's shouldn't be taken to be exclusive. It didn't always work that way. Aragorn and his ancestors where the result of Iluvatar's scheme to engineer an enlightened leadership for Men, paragons of kingly virtue who'd stand against evil, but that doesn't mean that virtue might not emerge spontaneously elsewhere.

If the ring had a will of its own I am pretty sure it could choose who it wanted to effect the most. Like focusing Boromir straight away from the start. Putting him in a really bad spot, I am guessing the hobbit and the man race was the easiest for the ring to corrupt. Even Aragorn would be corrupted if he wore the ring for too long.

"I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/

The deference Sam shows is simply that of a faithful servant to his master - Frodo doesn't have an extraordinary ancestry, just one which tends to display traits that are uncommon in hobbits, who tended to be petty rather than noble and self-sacrificing. It's not as if Tookish ancestry is needed for that though - while Sam is a simpler soul than Frodo he's good-hearted through and through - he takes up the burden of the Ring for a while, resists its temptations and is able to hand it back willingly, which shows considerable strength of character. And the Powers themselves recognise that, he's allowed to travel into the West in the end. So, one shouldn't see virtue and imagine it must come from some extraordinary ancestry - especially when the author indicates that the idea of the Tooks <em>actually</em> having such ancestry was 'absurd'.

<br><br>Sam is Frodo's gardener and definetly looks up to him, even if stature is purely of nobility or status in hobbit society. I agree that Sam is good hearted though and through but not without the guidance of Frodo, he admires Frodo because his noble character and tries to imitate it, that is why Sam was so successful partner in the end.

It's certainly linked in Elendil's case, as in Aragorn's, but it's shouldn't be taken to be exclusive. It didn't always work that way. Aragorn and his ancestors where the result of Iluvatar's scheme to engineer an enlightened leadership for Men, paragons of kingly virtue who'd stand against evil, but that doesn't mean that virtue might not emerge spontaneously elsewhere.

That virtue does emerge but its almost always in noble people, Im not saying it never emerged in simple people but its more rare usually heritage was key for taking roles against evil.

Sam is Frodo's gardener and definetly looks up to him, even if stature is purely of nobility or status in hobbit society. I agree that Sam is good hearted though and through but not without the guidance of Frodo, he admires Frodo because his noble character and tries to imitate it, that is why Sam was so successful partner in the end.

It's pure class consciousness, Sam 'knows his place' and therefore looks up to Frodo as his better in society. Sam's father, the Gaffer, was even more subservient and had been worried that Sam would get ideas above his station after Bilbo had taught him to read.

That virtue does emerge but its almost always in noble people, Im not saying it never emerged in simple people but its more rare usually heritage was key for taking roles against evil.

But it's not obviously heritage in Frodo's case, it definitely isn't in Sam's case and there remains the example of Boromir, who had the ancestry but didn't inherit any especial virtue (unlike his brother). Not to mention assorted Numenorean and later Dunedain kings who had the same exalted ancestry as Aragorn but turned out to be sadly lacking in virtue. It's no simple matter of heritage.

It's pure class consciousness, Sam 'knows his place' and therefore looks up to Frodo as his better in society. Sam's father, the Gaffer, was even more subservient and had been worried that Sam would get ideas above his station after Bilbo had taught him to read.

Yes, but Sam also is guided by frodo which is a moral middle-class hobbit which tolkien explicitly says reflect England at some point 19 century, and those english people were the ones that acquired some ranking in social classes of the time, Frodo seem was a noble in hobbit society but also learned from Bilbo who learned about virtue from elves. Nobility is also learned that is why Samwise imitated it.

But it's not obviously heritage in Frodo's case, it definitely isn't in Sam's case and there remains the example of Boromir, who had the ancestry but didn't inherit any especial virtue (unlike his brother). Not to mention assorted Numenorean and later Dunedain kings who had the same exalted ancestry as Aragorn but turned out to be sadly lacking in virtue. It's no simple matter of heritage.

Its true but they were apparently morally ambigous characters well defined by Tolkien, Isildur and Boromir were a target for the greatest evil and succumbed because of the focus on them, even aragorn would succumb Frodo didn't because he is a hobbit its that simple they resist evil, and his ancestry helped aswell.

That, sir, is a reductionist approach. We cannot reduce complex behaviours down to simply learning, other factors most also be considered hehe, just some mild humour there. A debate I am currently studying in psychology is the recutionism holism thing

Originally Posted by Al.

Its true but they were apparently morally ambigous characters well defined by Tolkien, Isildur and Boromir were a target for the greatest evil and succumbed because of the focus on them, even aragorn would succumb Frodo didn't because he is a hobbit its that simple they resist evil, and his ancestry helped aswell

Too true. And the resistance of Hobbits can been seen in a number of occasions, where they seem to shrug off terrible events and simply get on with life. Its not the same as the ring of course, but it shows they are made of pretty strong stuff. For example, Merry and Pippin on the way to Fangorn after their capture by the Uruks, and also of course, Frodo's recovery from his morgul blade wound. I know he had Elrond's help, but still. Boromir (not of the Nine Walkers) never recovered from his wound

Yes, but Sam also is guided by frodo which is a moral middle-class hobbit which tolkien explicitly says reflect England at some point 19 century, and those english people were the ones that acquired some ranking in social classes of the time, Frodo seem was a noble in hobbit society but also learned from Bilbo who learned about virtue from elves. Nobility is also learned that is why Samwise imitated it.

Frodo evidently doesn't have to work for a living and that, combined with living in a place like Bag End marks him out as a gentleman, in the old sense of the word. A hobbit commoner like Sam would have been brought up to be deferential to his betters, which would include Frodo - hence how Sam addresses him as 'Master Frodo' or 'sir' all the time to begin with. But Sam doesn't ape Frodo's manners or slavishly follow his lead, he remains his own man throughout and takes action on his own initiative (like when he hurls an apple at Bill Ferny). Apart from learning to read, what Sam got from Bilbo appears to have been more of a curiosity about the outside world (and Elves in particular) - he appears to have had his own innate, well-defined sense of right and wrong. One imagines the Gaffer had brought him up well.

Its true but they were apparently morally ambigous characters well defined by Tolkien, Isildur and Boromir were a target for the greatest evil and succumbed because of the focus on them, even aragorn would succumb Frodo didn't because he is a hobbit its that simple they resist evil, and his ancestry helped aswell.

They succumbed because they wanted the Ring for its power - anyone who did that got owned. It all comes down to character.

Frodo evidently doesn't have to work for a living and that, combined with living in a place like Bag End marks him out as a gentleman, in the old sense of the word. A hobbit commoner like Sam would have been brought up to be deferential to his betters, which would include Frodo - hence how Sam addresses him as 'Master Frodo' or 'sir' all the time to begin with. But Sam doesn't ape Frodo's manners or slavishly follow his lead, he remains his own man throughout and takes action on his own initiative (like when he hurls an apple at Bill Ferny). Apart from learning to read, what Sam got from Bilbo appears to have been more of a curiosity about the outside world (and Elves in particular) - he appears to have had his own innate, well-defined sense of right and wrong. One imagines the Gaffer had brought him up well.

They succumbed because they wanted the Ring for its power - anyone who did that got owned. It all comes down to character.

In brief summary here; the Frodo-Sam relationship was that of a 1920's/1930's English Middle Class gentleman (Frodo) and his Working-Class servant (Sam), although in this case Frodo is a kindly master who is much loved and respected by his servant, rather than envied as many would actually be?

In brief summary here; the Frodo-Sam relationship was that of a 1920's/1930's English Middle Class gentleman (Frodo) and his Working-Class servant (Sam), although in this case Frodo is a kindly master who is much loved and respected by his servant, rather than envied as many would actually be?

Edwardian or earlier, really, if you're looking for a parallel - the First World War largely put paid to the old deference, it changed society for good. But yes, Frodo (as with Bilbo before him) is a kind master (Gollum makes much of this) and so Sam really respects him - I doubt that'd be the case if he'd been working for some of the other hobbits we hear about. Just imagine being Lobelia's gardener, probably nothing would ever be good enough for her and she'd complain all the time.

Actually I did some digging, and found that Tolkien names Frodo in Return of the King as "Daur" which is a sindarin word for: "lofty, noble" or "king".

So yes noone until now knew that Frodo is a noble and that is why Sam Gamgee calls him "Master" or "Sir". Also apparently Frodo learned Sindarin from Bilbo, and every Tolkien scholar knows that speaking Sindarin or Quenya means you are Noble.

Also Tolkien hints even more by the origin of the name Frodo or Daur:

Frodo was orgininated by the norse word derived from Old Englishfród meaning "wise by experience"

Wise by Experience and Daur, would only mean noble, by logical deduction

Actually I did some digging, and found that Tolkien names Frodo in Return of the King as "Daur" which is a sindarin word for: "lofty, noble" or "king".

So yes noone until now knew that Frodo is a noble and that is why Sam Gamgee calls him "Master" or "Sir". Also apparently Frodo learned Sindarin from Bilbo, and every Tolkien scholar knows that speaking Sindarin or Quenya means you are Noble.

Also Tolkien hints even more by the origin of the name Frodo or Daur:

Frodo was orgininated by the norse word derived from Old Englishfród meaning "wise by experience"

Wise by Experience and Daur, would only mean noble, by logical deduction

It's a name given to Frodo as a form of praise - that doesn't make it literal. Don't ignore the context.

Gandalf himself says something very important to Frodo ...

... in, I believe, FotR, Shadow of the Past, though it might be in Moria, after Frodo realises that the Fellowship has picked up a "footpad".

but first, @ Egvorlad:

Top shelf! That has to be the funniest bit I've encountered anywhere in these forums, and with an arrow right in the bulls-eye! Thank you for making the point with humour, rather than venom.

Back to topic:

Frodo laments, "What a pity that Bilbo did not kill [Gollum] when he had the chance."

Gandalf replies, "Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand ...", further suggesting that Bilbo survived his long possession of the Ring "unscathed" precisely because he had begun with this act of compassion.

I think Gandalf then follows with the memorable, "Many who live deserve death/ many who die deserve life" speech.

... in, I believe, FotR, Shadow of the Past, though it might be in Moria, after Frodo realises that the Fellowship has picked up a "footpad".

Back to topic:

Frodo laments, "What a pity that Bilbo did not kill [Gollum] when he had the chance."

Gandalf replies, "Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand ...", further suggesting that Bilbo survived his long possession of the Ring "unscathed" precisely because he had begun with this act of compassion.

I think Gandalf then follows with the memorable, "Many who live deserve death/ many who die deserve life" speech.

HoG

You are right on both counts: in the book that speech is in The Shadow of the Past, while in PJ's film interpretation said speech occurs in Moria while they are stuck on choosing a path through Moria. Also, don't quote me on this but I think your idea about the compassion part is also mentioned by Gandalf, and also the fact that Bilbo gave up the Ring willingly in the end helped him. I think. Must check that out

But don't ignore the rest of post, Frodo means "Wise by experience" in Old english. Which is a noble character.

It's perfectly possible to be wise without being noble. Besides which, there's a big difference between being noble in character (which Frodo is) and being a noble (which he isn't) - you shouldn't conflate the two.

[I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
[/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

Noble is kind of an interesting word in modern usage. OED citations don't start till 12th century when the two major meanings of the word were already existent. This is not OED but cut and paste from Mr. Google which is pretty close:

Seems as though Roman "nobles" were our first celebrities. Dint know that Paris Hilton was noble didja?

The interesting part comes in when we realize that at some point there WAS a conflation of superior birth and superior qualities, a notion which is pretty hard to justify these days, but is still apparent in in the American colloquial word "class" (think Frank Sinatra: Kid, ya got CLASS.), which conflates the aristocracy with the attributes that the Victorian upper class showed and were looked up to for...but I digress.

There does not seem to be a doubt that Frodo had a noble character, but that being said, what does that get you in terms of the capability to fight off evil? I would argue that if Tolkien had indeed wanted to show that Frodo was superior in his ability to resist evil, a problematic assertion given that Hobbits were the ordinary, rural, salt of the earth type by design, his superiority probably came from something that the good, Catholic Professor probably saw as "spiritual strength". Something that was granted by Eru much as Catholics claim that the "holy spirit' is in each person.

Such spirituality (without the religious baggage) DOES appear in LOTR and is explicitly stated by Gandalf to Frodo as explanation of Glorfindel's radiance when Frodo gazed on him at the ford. Now it may be that Tolkien here was implying the notion of "like knows like" and lets Frodo share in some of Glorfy's spiritual goodness by his ability to recognize it.

I do not mean to start a religious discussion here, just to point out that in discussing notions of good vs. evil in LOTR, you're inevitably going to arrive at the goodly Prof's beliefs.

The contrary actually, Noble of spirit is linked with been Noble birth.

And Tolkien believes futher sustain this by saying Eru designed that the ring would find Bilbo and then be given to Frodo. Sam Gamgee is not noble for example but strives to be a good fellow and then becomes a Noble by doing Noble deeds.

Frodo and Bilbo were recognized by other hobbits as respectful and honorable as a little too adventurous aswell. been Honor bound is also a quality of been noble.

Noble spirit and Noble is linked no matter what profession or job you are in. Hence in the end they call Frodo "Daur" for been a noble, lofty, kingly hobbit.

The contrary actually, Noble of spirit is linked with been Noble birth.

And Tolkien believes futher sustain this by saying Eru designed that the ring would find Bilbo and then be given to Frodo. Sam Gamgee is not noble for example but strives to be a good fellow and then becomes a Noble by doing Noble deeds.

Frodo and Bilbo were recognized by other hobbits as respectful and honorable as a little too adventurous aswell. been Honor bound is also a quality of been noble.

Noble spirit and Noble is linked no matter what profession or job you are in. Hence in the end they call Frodo "Daur" for been a noble, lofty, kingly hobbit.

Wait wait wait wait. So you believe that being born in a high caste and/or class automatically makes you a good person with a noble spirit/heart?
You think there is no difference in being noble and being a noble? Despite the fact you just linked the dictionary description which marks that very difference?

You do realise we've moved past the 10th-18th centuries?

Oh and nobility didn't seem to exist among hobbits after the fall of Arnor (although the Thains were still a faint relic of those times). Sam was free to leave Frodo's service if he wanted to.
Instead of nobility, they had a system more akin to the esquire/gentleman gentry that Tolkien saw unfold as he grew up and was sent into WWI.

Last edited by BirdofHermes; Jun 28 2013 at 07:53 PM.

[I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
[/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

Wait wait wait wait. So you believe that being born in a high caste and/or class automatically makes you a good person with a noble spirit/heart?
You think there is no difference in being noble and being a noble? Despite the fact you just linked the dictionary description which marks that very difference?

Oh and nobility didn't exist among hobbits since the fall of Arnor (although the Thains were still a faint relic of those times). Sam was free to leave Frodo's service if he wanted to so clearly Frodo was not nobility.
Instead of nobility, they had a system more akin to the esquire/gentleman gentry that Tolkien saw unfold as he grew up and was sent into WWI.

Thats your interpretation, Frodo was noble and yes hobbits did have nobility as you have tooks (nobles) that had a estate, and LOTR is set in Middle-Ages or Late Roman times so yes the Shire was a rural land but also had people in the position of Lords, but they were not considered lords only just respectable people or Noble. (England WWI had Lords and nobles for example)

Noble can mean noble in spirit, but did you also see the difference between being noble and being a noble?
Being a noble of birth does not mean the same as being noble. The dictionary explains the difference quite well, the former being a political rank and the latter being a virtue to character.

Thats your interpretation, Frodo was noble and yes hobbits did have nobility as you have tooks (nobles) that had a estate, and LOTR is set in Middle-Ages or Late Roman times so yes the Shire was a rural land but also had people in the position of Lords, but they were not considered lords only just respectable people or Noble. (England WWI had Lords and nobles for example)

Hobbits used to have nobility, but that died with Arnor. Having an estate is not the same as being noble, as I pointed out when I said Hobbits by the time of WOTR had a caste/class system much like 19th century British gentry. Which is what Tolkien based Hobbit society on, not the Late Roman times (which is what most of the other Middle-earth's societies are based on).
I think you may be confused about what nobility entails in the english language, perhaps it has a different sort of translation in your own language (which seems to have been a problem for you in many threads, simply not understanding the english meaning of words in context).

Last edited by BirdofHermes; Jun 28 2013 at 09:10 PM.

[I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
[/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

Noble can mean noble in spirit, but did you also see the difference between being noble and being a noble?
Being a noble of birth does not mean the same as being noble. The dictionary explains the difference quite well, the former being a political rank and the latter being a virtue to character.

Yes I did see that too, my point is they are not mutually exclusive as Radhruin pointed out, for example you can be Noble from birth and Noble of spirit or you can be Noble of spirit and not be Noble of Birth. Goes both ways.

Hobbits used to have nobility, but that died with Arnor. Having an estate is not the same as being noble, as I pointed out when I said Hobbits by the time of WOTR had a caste/class system much like 19th century British gentry. Which is what Tolkien based Hobbit society on, not the Late Roman times (which is what most of the other Middle-earth's societies are based on).

Yes Hobbit do have a system like England in 19th century, but that proves the point Im trying to make people on those times were begining to adjust to the new system, in the Old system a Lord would have ownership of the land and his servants who worked and lived there, in the new system they were adjunsting to servants were able to work or own their own land, Frodo owns a considerable estate (Bag End) and Sam is his gardener that is why Sam feels compelled to loyalty to him, even if he could treat frodo like any other hobbit.

Frodo is a Noble because he is a virtuous hobbit too, so Sam even more desires to learn from him because Frodo is not a Lord never was one, and he is also free no longer bound to servitude in his new society.

I think you may be confused about what nobility entails in the english language, perhaps it has a different sort of translation in your own language (which seems to have been a problem for you in many threads, simply not understanding the english meaning of words in context).

Yes probably you are spot on, Im trying to use Noble as Noble spirit because were I live is synonymous also I've seen the relationship of Frodo and Sam and do realate that Tolkien tried to make it obvious its was loyalty and friendship which is my point.

Frodo is a Noble because he is a virtuous hobbit too, so Sam even more desires to learn from him because Frodo is not a Lord never was one, and he is also free no longer bound to servitude in his new society.

Sorry, you're mangling the English language something awful here. Someone who is 'a' noble is either noble by birth or has been raised to the nobility, but is not necessarily all that virtuous or noble of character. Likewise, someone can be extremely noble of character without being a noble by birth. Frodo is not 'a' noble, the Shire doesn't have a nobility as such; it's cut off short at petty gentry (just the equivalent of country squires, no real lords) because the lords of Arnor had all been Dunedain, back in the day, and the Shire had been part of that.

Not sure what this talk of a new society is supposed to be about. Sam was never bound to servitude (an indentured servant), he was simply Frodo's employee and I don't get the impression there'd ever been serfdom anywhere in Arnor - it doesn't strike me as something the Dunedain would have gone for because they were supposed to be comparatively enlightened.

Isildur was born as noble as you can be yet in the end he abandoned his troops and tried to make a run for it with the ring.

"I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/